The act of downloading data required to view that copyright material "and any subsequent processing of that data, including processing for display, provided that it does not result in any publication elsewhere of the work or an adaptation of the work" should also be explicitly permissible, O'Donnell's draft amendment had proposed.

Given its frequent exhortations to the public not to infringe on copyright in any way, you would have thought the UK government would have rushed this amendment through in order to legalize what are, after all, absolutely indispensable actions when using the Web. But no:

Last week Business Minister Norman Lamb said the Government would not draft new copyright laws to make the act of website browsing explicitly legitimate and not in breach of copyright until the courts had ruled on the issue.

Since the Supreme Court is not expected to rule on this until the beginning of next year, that means another six months of blanket infringement for UK users of the Web. When even the British government seems not to care about the letter of copyright law, which is hard enough to understand at the best of times, how are ordinary citizens supposed to know what is legal or illegal as they go about their daily lives online?

That was last year and I STILL can't get my head around the idea that viewing a web page without permission is considered infringement. Surely the very act of putting the page online is implied permission for the public to view it? I'm still confused.

Re:

This was discussed in the case, but only briefly. Yes, there can be "implied licences" such as when you publish something on the Internet, however they can be defeated by express licences.

In the case itself, this issue didn't really arise as all the newspapers involved apparently had some sort of express statement in their T&Cs that the content could be copied etc. but only for personal use. Meltwater was doing something that wasn't personal use, so there wasn't really an issue with this.

Re: Re: Re:

Well I am gonna spend a few grand on ads that will link to a page that just says "by coming here you violated my copyright. Your ip has been logged we will send you a demand for 5K before we sue you, have a great weekend."

Re:

And now for something completely different

"In other news, this would be the link that links to the article that includes an image of several links that might infringe upon our own copyright, but since we're still waiting for word from Sony and EMI on whether we can report this, here's Tim with today's sports reenactments."

the main reason the UK government are waiting to make a decision is they haven't got a fucking clue what they are talking about or what they are doing! some equally brainless idiot has said that the Internet has to be blocked completely because if not people will be finding out all sorts of information, some of it being detrimental to the government and that must be stopped at all costs. at the same time stop any downloads of infringing material, whatever that might be

Re:

some equally brainless idiot has said that the Internet has to be blocked completely because if not people will be finding out all sorts of information, some of it being detrimental to the government

The UK should just take the old Soviet Union/KGB propaganda/freedom-suppression/killing tactic that the United States is busily perfecting and destroy those who would dare release information on government incompetence. Has being up the US's waste-pipe all these years taught them nothing?

Re:

It's also worth noting that no one cares about this. Even copyright lawyers and commentators generally recognise that the original ruling had no practical effects, and none of the big lobby groups are that interested. As for the government - why would they want to waste time on the Internet; they're not going to win any votes by changing a law that no one follows anyway? The original ruling was back in 2010 and the Supreme Court won't be hearing it until late 2012 or early 2013 - the law can wait.

Contrast this with the situation that developed last year with police bail conditions, when a court ruled that the police were breaking the law by holding people on indefinite bail without charge, the case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court (within a couple of months) but the Government (under pressure from the police lobby groups) rushed through a new law in a week, completely undercutting the work of the courts.

Re: Re:

I bet the US would have a different view on this extradition process when the tables are turned.

No it wouldn't. They've got the majority of the bombs and guns and they make war (which they usually lose) at the drop of a hat. It gives them a false sense of security, similar to what the ancient Roman empire had just before it fell apart.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hmmm,

War of 1812 - More of a draw than a loss, but Washington was still razed.
WW2 (Europe) - Possible claim that joining in the end game doesn't actually equate to a victory.
Korea - Didn't go to well, still ended in a draw.
Vietnam - Loss
War on Drugs - Not going that well.
War on Piracy - Ditto.
War on Terrorism - Still not much to write home about.

But still in the overall scheme of things, the American's have won more conflicts then they lost.... But being in a large number of conflicts to begin with isn't much of a bragging point either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your WW2 is more accurate for WW1. You weren't nearly as late joining WW2, so you were actually able to help more. Even if it took Germany stupidly declaring war on you, or you'd have only bothered with the Pacific theatre...

UK law is odd. I run an online radio station, about 6 years ago, I used some stats from Figure Skating Universe, which is in Britain, when reporting the results of a competition, and they banned me from the site, claiming copyright infringement. I can see now where they got their crazy idea that using their stats in my report was copyright infringement, that crazy British copyright law you just reported on in the article.

Re: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK

Not just visiting websites

The other fun part of the original case was where the Judge found that *receiving* an email involved an act of copying. So... if someone sends you an email with something covered by copyright (such as a picture of a kitten with an amusing caption, or merely some forwarded text), simply by opening the email you may be breaking the law (if you're in England or Wales).

Re: Not just visiting websites

I believe you do not even have to open that email. You have already received it, it's in your Inbox! Who cares if you actually read it or not. You can always set the status to "Unread". No-no-no! You're guilty as soon as it shows in your Inbox!

Re: What every government wants...

This is precisely true. When a state criminalises all its citizens, it is then free to pick and choose who to arrest and prosecute on the basis of its own whims, and it is no longer a country ruled by law, but instead is ruled by the whims of people empowered with govermental/state authority.

Re: Re: Re:

It is similar under U.S. copyright law, where downloading a web page counts a copying, and therefore may be copyright infringement if done without permission.

However, in nearly all cases, there would be an implied license to engage in such copying. The rub is when websites have explicit terms and conditions limiting use of their sites to certain purposes (e.g., noncommercial, noncompetetive, etc.).

However the UK has some arcane laws going back centuries, a lot of the older ones broken by many people all the time. I'd have to know where the initial ruling came from. But I'll plough on regardless...

So... why aren't we all arrested?

Because the police aren't petty little pedants (contrary to most people's views!) and understand that commonsense has to prevail.

It's only lawyers (and possibly online journalists) who don't have enough to do, so expect the letter of the law to be upheld and then cry foul when it isn't.

Re:

Sure. Fiona Lamb just drafted alterations to existing copyright laws, and the business minister made a statement that they needed to wait for a legal ruling on the matter to draft the necessary new laws because Glynn made a mistake.

That is all we do and if anyone tries coming after us, we hit back HARD and get the law thrown out then. It shouldn't come to that, but too often considering how freaking lazy our politicians in the world today are, it does.